Music; Music Business and Industry; Music Education; Music Therapy; Conducting; Acting; Dance; Musical Theatre; Theatre Design and Technology; Wildlife and Fisheries Resources; Natural Resources Science; Genetics and Developmental Biology; Plant and Soil Sciences; Natural Resource Economics; Women’s and Gender Studies; Philosophy; Health Services and Outcomes Research; Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences; Epidemiology; Social and Behavioral Sciences
These degrees are remaining with reduced staff:
Mining Engineering; Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering; Civil Engineering; Computer Engineering; Computer Science; Electrical Engineering; Software Engineering; Elementary Education; Literacy Education; Music Composition; Music Performance; Law; Agriculture; Design Studies; Fashion Design and Merchandising; Interior Architecture; Human and Community Development; Environmental, Soil, and Water Sciences; Chemistry; Communication Studies; English; Secondary Education; Professional Writing and Editing; Mathematics; Management; Human Resource Management; Communication Sciences and Disorders; Exercise Physiology; Health Informatics / Information Management; Human Performance and Health; Athletic Training; Occupational Therapy; Speech Language Pathology; Audiology; Physical Therapy; Pharmacy; Health Administration; Biostatistics
These degrees are remaining with reduced staff and getting merged together:
Theatre with Puppetry; Costume Design with Lighting Design with Scenic Design with Technical Direction; Energy Land Management with Environmental and Energy Resource Management; Forest Resource Management with Wood Science and Technology; Horticulture with Sustainable Food and Farming; Agribusiness Management with Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; Public Health with Health Services Management and Leadership
These degrees are remaining with reduced staff but with some specializations eliminated:
Art and Design; Art Education; Art and Design; Environmental Microbiology
These degrees are being eliminated entirely:
Biometric Systems Engineering; Higher Education Administration; Multicategorical Special Education; Art History; Jazz Studies; Jazz Pedagogy; Composition; Collaborative Piano; Acting; Environmental and Community Planning; Landscape Architecture; Recreation, Parks, and Tourism; Energy Environments; Resource Management; Creative Writing; MS/PhD Mathematics; Legal Studies; Public Administration; Chinese; French; German; Russian; Spanish; Linguistics; TESOL; Occupational and Environmental Health Sciences
---
Also note that these are just recommendations not final decisions yet.
Not to make an obvious boring comment, but: someone was offering a college degree in this? Yeesh. Bloat begets bloat, I guess.
I guess maybe that's overly cynical. Post-secondary education is important, and it follows that we would want people to figure out how to best deliver it. But hard not to judge that, just a little bit.
> Not to make an obvious boring comment, but: someone was offering a college degree in [higher education administration]? Yeesh. Bloat begets bloat, I guess.
1. This is a graduate degree.
2. Part of the degree is doctorate type of stuff (research methodology). This content is definitely needed. The other part is stuff that is unique to universities, and it is all over the map — finance (including fund raising), policy, governance, student development, campus culture, etc.
You can’t just take a random professor or a random business person and expect them to be a good university administrator. It’s a topic worthy of research and study, imho.
All that said, many of the folks I know who majored in this field absolutely drink the kool-aid and are mostly full of shit. I personally think that’s due to the folks who are shaping the areas of discourse in this field (mostly in a very near-term sort of way that lacks vision) more than it being an issue of the field being fundamentally flawed itself.
I'm not surprised that such a degree is available and needed, but having it pop up in a list of programs of a random university is curious. Surely the need for such a degree is limited and those who would seek it out would be keen on obtaining it from an institution that isn't struggling.
> Surely the need for such a degree is limited and those who would seek it out would be keen on obtaining it from an institution that isn't struggling.
This is the flagship state school. It’s hardly some random school. If this program is not at this school in the state, it won’t be at any school.
If you’re not from the US, every state has a “flagship” state school. Some have a comparably strong second school that usually covers agriculture and engineering (these are the A&M schools).
West Virginia only has one major state school, and WVU is that school.
> I don't see why students can't go to another state to get their education.
As a non-american, I am baffled by this way of thinking. Higher education is supposed to be a way to ensure that a state is self-sufficient in terms of some core competencies by retaining a small number of workers specialized in compiling, developing, and sharing industry knowledge.
Is West Virginia so empoverished that they can't manage to support the two dozen or so teachers required to support an engineering degree?
As an American, I think freebee56's thinking is very rare - intellectually most people understand the situation as you do, and emotionally flagship state universities engender a strong sense of identity in graduates and state residents, in some states even for those who didn't attend it.
Out-of-state tuition costs for any public university are usually double what it costs for in-state students. It would seem short-sighted to deprive WV high school graduates of a solid public school where they can get in-state tuition rates.
Then WV can negotiate with other states to allow students to attend their universities, paying in-state tuition, with WV making up the difference. Students get better-funded schools, WV can negotiate good rates.
There are various regional associations to address this sort of issue. A college friend, a Virginia native, wanted to pursue a master's in library science, but Virginia did not offer one. North Carolina did, and so through one of those multi-state compacts, he went to UNC and paid in-state tuition.
We don't expect towns of 2000 people to support a high school. They go to a regional school - perhaps only one high school per county.
That is a very good point, I didn't even consider it was possible to do that whole "negotiate in-state tuition and make up the diff in funding by another state" approach. Thanks for bringing it up.
A similar example, one that I think no longer exists but did for a long time:
Tennessee is legally divided into Western, Middle, and Eastern Tennessee. There are a lot of rules in the state constitution that respect these Grand Divisions; IIRC an equal number of TN Supreme Court justices must be from each division, etc.
Anyway, the University of Tennessee is in Knoxville, which is in the Eastern Division (and a long way from Memphis). The University of Mississippi, in Oxford, is only about an hour and a half away from Memphis. For many years, students living in at least metro Memphis (and possibly most of Western Tennessee) could attend Ole Miss and pay in-state tuition - which is why in The Blind Side, the family were Ole Miss supporters. Memphis is the cultural capital of the Delta region, which covers parts of Mississippi, Tennessee, and Arkansas, and Ole Miss (though not in the Delta) was the natural flagship university for the area.
Tennessee just paid Mississippi for its students. It was cheaper than building another university that would only have attracted students from a relatively small portion of the state.
I worked at a university that offer a “PhD” in higher ed. administration. In theory I suppose nearly any field could be the valid subject of research. In practice, I saw this degree used to grant PhDs to existing administrators who didn’t already have PhDs. I’m guessing that this may be useful in gaming rankings.
Often high school principal jobs, school district administrator and university jobs require a graduate degree, as a gatekeeping credential. This degree was likely created to capture that tuition money by offering the necessary employment credential for a relatively low level of academic effort.
This is good as a first step. Better would be Higher Education Administration Administration, a PhD-level field dedicated to the theory and practice of administrating academic programs about higher education administration.
Maybe don’t judge it, then. At least not in such a condescending way. Especially since we need more people thinking deeply about how to make education work, not fewer.
Public schools have been growing the administrative side of the business for decades, getting more money than ever before per student and it seems children are learning less and less. That Doesn’t seem like the best track record for thinking deeply. They do get paid very well and in many states are allowed to retire early which insane pensions so maybe too much thinking on salaries and more attention to the students.
If you are concerned about spiraling costs and the siloing of wealth in this country, let me suggest you look elsewhere. Students and educators ain’t it.
Especially since we need more people thinking deeply about how to make education work, not fewer.
I'm not sure that's true. The US system is staggeringly wasteful, partly because there are 50 states and thousands of school districts all making out that they are unique and different and need to find their own ways of doing things (a critique which could be leveled at the US more generally). This is an invitation to corruption and endless politicking.
Amid all the various studies and reports and education manifestos, you know what I never hear? Of policies derived from surveying students about what they think and what does or does not work for them. Generally when I bring this point up it gets dismissed with some variation of 'students will just ask for more time off and less work and standards will crumble' which I don't think has any basis in fact.
We have too many administrators bloating up university budgets. In my experience, very few people involved in academia truly question it or ask how educational systems should be built from the ground up. They usually are the worst defenders of that system, since they're the ones who flourish in it most. I don't think anybody who works in academics is truly capable of thinking outside of it.
Academics hate administrators, but are too timid/selfish to coordinate with other academics across departmental lines to undermine the administrative body - not least because academics hate administration and don't have a good idea for how to deal with it.
Judgment is a good thing for society. These fictitious fields hurt the credibility of real fields of study. If you’re a doctor—or anyone else, but especially a doctor—you should be publicly, vociferously, and condescendingly judgmental towards homeopathy or chiropractic. It’s your obligation for the good of the public.
Education is also important — along with the administration of that education — so when people judge things they can do so from a standpoint of understanding and not from the standpoint of reactionary politics and uninformed gut takes. (Education is how doctors become doctors, after all.) Thoughtful and educated judgment born of understanding is good for society. Just clouding things with dumb opinions — or pure bullshit — helps no one.
If something is obviously not working, or doesn’t make sense, it’s important that the public be able to criticize it by reference to common sense and lived experience. Otherwise, you’re turning over the policing function entirely to the same people who are deeply invested in protecting the legitimacy of a field of inquiry.
Legitimate fields of study usually do not have trouble establishing their legitimacy to ordinary people. My undergraduate degree is in aerospace engineering. I’ve never had to argue from authority to get people to accept that’s a legitimate field that produces actionable facts.
The point is that they earned this authority, because their planes fly, whereas, for example, experts on childhood education cannot point to such obvious undeniable achievement that laypeople cannot reach.
You comment this on a website which has weekly threads about "how I burned out switching from dev to management" or "How I started a small business on an island because the switch to management fucked up my life" threads.
There is a lot of theory and practical studies involved in running a school or university. Also, many schools will require their admin to have a background in school administration, which tracks like this one help develop.
Everyone wants to think they are special and thus different and better. Nobody is. You are all the evils of Trump / Stalin / slave owners but for minor differences of situation.
Acting is an interesting example. While it isnt an economicly good idea, a large percentage of successful actors do get their start there, paticularly make actors who generally "break" into the business at an older age than female actors. Jim Parsons is the classic example. He had a masters in theatre and was in his mid-30s before his breakout on the big bang theory. He became the highest-paid male actor on TV.
Compare Kaley Cuoco who broke at aged fifteen (Growing up Brady) and i do not believe ever finished traditional highschool.
Well, one university cannot have a "top" program without some other universities having bottom or at least not-top programs. For excellent people to climb to the top of the pile, there has to be a pile of not-excellent on which to climb.
Not everyone who takes acting classes wants to become an actor. I'm in the military and I can say that more military people should take acting classes. I've seen drill sergeants who are totally unable to fake being angry and so come out looking just crazy because they don't understand how to play a character, and generals who cannot make a simple speech without getting people angry for no reason. Even a bottom-of-the-pile acting class would help.
Improv classes is probably a better choice. It's still acting, but you're doing it on the fly, which is a lot more useful IMO than being able to prepare precanned lines.
It still requires you to warm up and do exercises, though.
There is a lot to recommend about regular acting as a life skill. It requires text analysis as well as understanding a wide array of people. It's deeply dependent on communicating abstract ideas.
Being able to come up with ideas quickly is great, but conventional acting is about considering deeply and exploring ideas together. The preparation for those "precanned" lines requires a ton of work, work that people don't understand or recognize, but they know when they connect with a performance, and it's all due to that preparation.
In short it's all those "soft skills" that techies both deride and bemoan the lack of.
It takes hours and hours of practice to do improvisation, especially at high level, and it can be deep exploration of ideas as well though long form improv shows.
Absolutely. I did not intend to demean improv, which is an incredibly useful skill and also great practice for a lot of analogous situations.
I just wanted to briefly defend conventional acting as well, which is poorly understood. (Partly by deliberate choice; actors do like to tell myths about their craft.) As both an actor and programmer myself, I find a number of overlapping skills.
I wonder how they did their selections. Some of the choices surprise me, such as reduction of staff on comp sci, software eng, electrical eng. I presume those departments would be where people want to go because of the big paying jobs.
They published their methodology, the metrics driving discontinuation of programs and specialties were:
- Enrollment in the major/program (as of Fall 2022)
- Enrollment trends in the major/program over a five-year period (Fall 2018-Fall 2022)
The metrics for reducing headcount were:
- Student credit hour (SCH) production trend from AY 2020 to AY 2022
- Full-time faculty headcount and trend from 2020 to 2022
- Full-time faculty-to-student ratio
- Net tuition revenue trends over 2020-2022 (Tuition revenue, based on SCH production, minus expenses)
- Total unrestricted expenses trend from 2020-2022
- Net financial position and trend from 2020-2022
Exceptions were made for:
- R1 research contributions - Doctoral programs and associated non-terminal master’s programs within a unit that has annual (FY 2022) external research expenditures of $1 million are exempted from review.
Enrollment overall sounds like the issue, which may be tied to WV population demographics. I don't know how many people are moving to WV to go to college, but the population of WV continues to shrink year over year.
Do we know why? I've never been there, but Charleston looks like a cosy city and there's lots of classic small american towns around and the nature looks amazing. Have they just not been able to develop any new industry after coal mining collapsed?
I grew up in semi-rural Virginia and recently watched Peter Santenello's Appalachia[1] series on YT. The reality is that WV is nearly entirely rural (like Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas), but there's little oil or gas to backfill the coal, and it's absolutely not flat enough (and is almost entirely forested) for either meaningful factory/ranch farming or much else. It doesn't benefit from interstate commerce and there's no river running through it, either. Beyond all the topographical/geographical challenges, the cities are shells of their former selves, and since both the educational attainment and financial independence of West Virginians is low, the potential for breaking out of this death spiral seems low.
All that ... and then add the fact that WV is perhaps the worst hit state by the opioid crisis.
Tons of natural beauty and I think the state should continue investing in tourism along the lines of what Tennessee has done for decades with the Smokies.
My hometown is in semi-rural WV as well, and this is all true.
Furthermore, because the lack of opportunity and things for young people to occupy themselves with, many young people with means (and many who don’t, via college loans) move elsewhere to build a life for themselves. I did, because if I hadn’t the path ahead of me had a ceiling I’d hit by my late 20s or early 30s.
This contributes to the cycle of decay that much more. Fewer young people → shrinking working population → no interest from employers → no jobs.
And the opioid cross has made it all that much worse. It’s sad. My hometown wasn’t exactly bustling when I was a kid in the 90s, but it still had some life to it. Now it’s barely hanging on.
This is part of what I hoped would evolve as part of the full remote pandemic stuff. I left my home area because it was obvious my salary ceiling would be about a third of what I am making now, and I still have room to grow where I am where I would otherwise be stuck. With full remote it would have been possible to at least move back home, but attitudes seem to have shifted for the worse in a lot of cases so being within an hour commute of a tech hub (US) is the only way to get the salary parity.
WV basically has two things going for it: coal and natural beauty. And the tourism industry isn't enough to support a whole state. So people are leaving quite a bit.
A lot of people coming in, including myself, are not full time residents. Some of them are retirees from northern Virginia looking for a lower cost of living. Some just prefer rural life with a more live-and-let-live vibe. But almost nobody is moving out here to raise kids who will go to college here.
For the small number who do raise college-bound kids here, a fair number of them will gladly take a lower ranked school to be closer to the city, e.g., University of Richmond.
Politically this is the classic “rotten borough/pocket borough” problem in a nutshell though. People move away, and you are left with a seat controlled by a ridiculously small number of people who nevertheless control a constitutionally-allocated location.
In the UK this got down to some districts having literally single-resident or single-family districts. And it’s super easy to influence the residents when there’s a single master who controls the borough… kinda like coal in WV.
Part of the reason why they got the political say in the first place - so that they could have a say in politics to prevent this kind of decay from happening. It doesn't always work out though.
> Tourism is enough to support the state if it is combined with amenities that attract year-round residents -- especially remote workers.
Tourism and amenities for remote workers don't come across as a universal remedy for addressing the challenges of West Virginia.
While certain areas are undoubtedly picturesque and the cost of living might be low, similar sentiments apply to Montana, the Carolinas, Maine, and so on. Truth be told there are many such areas in the majority of states that have similar natural beauty and low cost of living (barring a handful of distinct cases).
What specific beneficial attributes does West Virginia possess that set it apart from other states?
> The problem with WV is a pervasive culture of corruption among its elites.
As compared to where? Senator Byrd did a lot to bring federal programs to WV- the FBI, astronomy, interstates, various DoD, I don't think anyone has replaced his influence for the state.
The nature is nice. Harper's Ferry is one of the most beautiful places I've ever been in my life. But it's not much nicer than any other Blue Ridge state all the way down to Tennessee and Georgia. Meanwhile, the town life, at least as of 20 years ago, is desolate. My best friend from college grew up in West Virginia, and I spent a week with him there before he moved to LA to become a television writer back in 2001. I don't know that I've seen a place more falling apart. Houses collapsed, abandoned. Weird paint splotches that looked like blood stains on houses that were still occupied. Every single lawn had a Camaro body with no engine and no tires propped up on cinder blocks. Other than coal mining, the only employer in this guy's town, which is where he worked, was some kind of direct mailing marketing operation that paid minimum wage.
The only upside, if you're truly poor, is you could rent a reasonable sized place for $100 a month.
As a WVU grad who grew up there: ya, pretty much. Outside of some select towns and cities, WV is poor as shit, and it's only getting worse. Lots of abandoned towns, homelessness, and very few jobs. Even when coal mining was big, it wasn't exactly a thriving area. The movie October Sky is a great rendition of what it was like in the 50s, the coal company owned everything, and was the only source for anyone's income. Now imagine that 70 years later with all the coal companies gone, and tons of painkillers.
Its a very sad state, anyone I knew with half a brain who grew up there wanted nothing but to leave. Even those in good situations were all looking to move far away after college.
The decline of coal was hastened by public policy, but was inevitable. Also, other parts of Appalachia haven’t met West Virginia’s fate because the states successfully diversified their economies and don’t rely as heavily on extractive industries.
West Virginia’s issue — as a state - is a deep seated cultural unwillingness to adapt or change. The decline of goal is the trigger, not the problem.
> West Virginia’s issue — as a state - is a deep seated cultural unwillingness to adapt or change
As illustrated by the 2016 election.
One candidate said coal had played a vital role in making the US what it is but it is in decline due to both the need to address climate change and falling demand due to advances in other forms of energy production. That candidate proposed a $30 billion dollar plan to "ensure that coal miners and their families get
the benefits they’ve earned and respect they deserve, to invest in economic diversification and job creation, and to make coal communities an engine of US economic growth in the 21st century as they have been for generations" [1].
The other candidate said he would reverse the decline in coal and bring back the jobs and mines that had gone away over the previous decade. He offered no hint at how he would accomplish that, and nearly all analysts and even more coal mine owners said that because of the shale revolution and the rapidly falling prices of wind and solar coal would remain in decline no matter what the government did
West Virginia overwhelmingly voted for that second candidate giving him a larger percentage of their vote (68%) than any other state.
As someone who was born and raised in WV, I’ll say that though the coal industry had been the state’s lifeline for over a century, the relationship was toxic at best. Appalachian coal miners are among the most used and abused groups of workers in modern history. The pay is good for the area yes, but it requires trading away your health and risking death. Coal companies are shameless when it comes to workers’ rights and that traces all the way back to their origin point. They’re part of the reason that governmental worker protections exist now.
Realistically the state government should’ve started to seriously try to attract alternative industries decades ago, because the state was always going to spiral if it relied on coal… the only difference is the speed of the spiral.
Yup, things like “portal to portal” rules for Amazon warehouse workers have their origin in the subterranean portals of a mine, because coal companies didn’t want to pay their workers for the hour ride down or up the mineshaft. Which is the analogy Amazon drew to their frisk lines at the exits, even if they require it it’s not “part of the job” etc.
Coal companies were the Uber of their time, “innovating” in a space and time when the law hadn’t kept up with industrial progress, and obviously one of the places you can extract value is from the welfare of your workers.
This sort of victim mentality is endemic to the region.
WV could have taken the path of western PA. Not perfect, still some deep scars, but a flourishing new economy that can help pay for long term recovery and provided youth with some sort of future.
WV chose victimhood over adaptation, for decades, and here we are. The article isn’t just about cutting humanities departments. WV is so thoroughly hollowed out that it can’t even afford to keep its flagship Computer Science department fully staffed. It’ll be left out of the great onshoring because there is not sufficient human capital or infrastructure.
It’s the state government version of a private equity “strip mine the assets and wind it down” operation.
Constant victimhood is a self fulfilling prophecy. Opportunities were there. WV was too busy being obstinate to take them.
Heh, this family is in Western PA which I left in the early 2000's for greener pastures outside of PA entirely. I love the area and the people, but pretending things are economically rosy in Western PA in the extraction areas undercuts your credibility. Leave Pittsburgh once in awhile.
1. These sorts of presumptive comments are presumptive and serve no purpose in the conversation. Believe it or not, you aren't the only person on the internet with your background.
2. Western PA is an enormous region, and it's not just Allegheny County that is doing well relative to West Virginia.
3. Having some base of economic activity outside of coal is still better than nothing, even if resulting employment is concentrated in metro areas.
Realtalk, one of the biggest problems with the United States is that there’s no mechanism to adjust or reboot states after statehood.
In some of these cases the state would simply go under and be reformed or reabsorbed into neighboring states, but thanks to the federal mechanism this cannot happen. The US taxpayer will always be injecting federal money into the state and that’s enough to stave off total collapse, it is unpossible for even a natural disaster to push even the shittiest corrupt state under or anything else. And in many casss that means these corrupt ineffective states continue to linger on far past their actual shelf life and after they would have been reformed into a more stable one under any other system.
This also has the effect of crippling the federal government with a lot of “pocket boroughs/rotten boroughs” that have constitutionally-allocated voting rights yet have almost no residents and potentially no economic activity. And there is no mechanism to reform this without the consent of the states, which will never be given for political reasons even if the states themselves wanted it (which they don’t).
It is also not a coincidence that when the Slave States left that the north got a bunch of regulatory stuff passed while they were gone. The marriage is really not a happy one and part of that is that these state governments continue to be set up in an undemocratic fashion which continues to promote and empower these same folks over and over - like the 1910s/1920s and 1950s/1960s flareups of the Klan. But again, we rebuilt the same antidemocratic (by design, to suppress threats to oligarchic slaveholder power) government structures after the war and expected a different outcome somehow. And there just is no mechanism for reform without another war and re-admission to the union as being a club to force reforms.
This lack of a reform mechanism for state allocation and structure is going to be the thing that kills the union for good, I very much feel this is the singular underlying issue that’s been rattling around the untied states for almost 250 years now. Fix the state allocation and the senate or presidency aren’t as undemocratic a structure.
And yes, I understand full well that the slave states would never have joined the compact if such provisions were included. They should have been, and the slave states would eventually have collapsed or initiated a fatal war and been assimilated into a more stable structure. The economic collapse of the south in the 1840s/1850s as they missed the industrialization wave due to the Resource Curse of slave labor would have pushed them under in the alt-history timeline too.
(and yes West Virginia was the loyalists who stayed with the union, but, culturally and economically they have weighed with the rest of Southern Appalachia more in the intervening era, and suffered similar resource-curse economic failure due to coal rather than cheap slave labor.)
You keep equating killing an industry with killing people - this is a false comparison.
Ending the use of coal saves human lives and does not take any human lives. The batman comparison is irrelevant.
No longer using asbestos saved lives and didn't take lives.
Removing lead from consumer products saves lives and didn't take lives.
I'm sure you there were people in the asbestos industry who weren't happy about the change and they would have gladly gone on giving people cancer. Just like people in the coal industry still bemoan the fact they can't keep killing as many people.
If I kill a car's engine or kill the music or kill this conversation do you understand what I mean?
The executive branch killed the coal industry. It was a swift action to bring something to a close.
That people in this thread can't disentangle one sense of "kill" from another is disappointing. My "murder" examples probably didn’t help but I figured people might enjoy the nuances (All of them could have been written about turning off, or killing, a bad radio station vs a good radio station and the arguments hold). Lesson learned.
My point has never been about the extent to which coal usage ends the life of humans. Frankly, that doesn't matter to anything I have said.
I'm curious about the mindset behind your statement. The article you linked is very clearly a political propaganda piece, and I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with it.
Does the local population really see the coal industry as purposely killed off by government, and not an industry that's been long in decline, with the final nail in the coffin being provided by the rapid expansion of natural gas via fracking?
I am making the point that Obama's energy policies were a deliberate, concerted disaster for coal mining far in excess of any gradual market changes.
Anecdata, but this was common knowledge in the region at the time. Retroactively, the broader public thinks the industry faded away. But no, it was shived.
Wow. No one remembers even the NYT coverage of this exact thing https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/us/politics/obama-coal-mi.... I am not saying anything not agreed to by both parties at the time. The only difference was whether or not a politician cheered it.
Obama did not "cheer" it and did not kill it. The coal industry had already been dead for years. He was the first president to refuse to commit to continuing the political fiction it wasn't, and to offer an actual alternative.
We could have debated the alternative - it had problems! - but instead the argument formed, and still forms, around the outright lie that coal mining could have continued. Even as it was already not employing people anymore!
The entire world is transitioning off of coal. Here are some charts on how England coal mining/use has also deeply fallen: https://ourworldindata.org/death-uk-coal
I wonder if those who exploited child labor talk about the times before and after child labor was "killed", or drug companies talk about the times before and after thalidomide was "killed"
Was child labor ever actually 'killed off'? As I understand it, its use declined before legislation hit, but even legislation never completely got rid of it. It just rebranded as "helping my family on a farm" or "helping my family shop" or "summer jobs" or similar.
Clearly, I am morally equivalent to child labor and thalidomide by attempting to correct that coal mining didn't collapse on its own but rather it was explicitly killed by executive action. </sarcasm> Next.
yes, coal energy is worse for the world than thalidomide was, and the chip on your shoulder is enormous here
if you have any reason the analogy doesn't apply, besides acting offended that it does, feel free to cite it, otherwise it just seems like you're bitter about coal being bad for earth
We don’t know about previous cuts, so it could be that unaffected programs were cut to the bone already. Also, they might not just be competitive in those programs to attract students and teachers needed to run them, so it’s better to focus on other things. Not every school can run a viable world class computer science program.
> Not every school can run a viable world class computer science program.
This is a consideration, but for WV residents it is better to have a mediocre program with in-state tuition than no program and this will eventually affect the WV economy as a whole..
There's a short term logic in shutting down everything that isn't competitive to attract out of state students, but the resulting function of the public system wont fulfill any of the goals of a state system.
For linguistics? I can't speak for the others, but I know that linguistics departments are pumping out a lot more PhDs than there are positions in the field. I expect that is true for all of them. Because these fields don't tend to bring in grant money, I expect professors can't demand rock star salaries.
But if your ratio of professors to students is poor, your department is going to be a money drain even if its demand in salaries and facilities is low.
Yeah was surprised to see Computer Science and some other 'hot fields' in the list of programs getting downsized as well, wonder if there just wasn't that much demand for these majors in this particular college?
I have a theory as to why: Most other departments get to enjoy the "PhD glut" allowing them to score candidates from top graduate programs and then pay them around $60K/year, and then filling things out by with adjunct professors who are often paid in the range of $1500-$4500 to teach a class for a semester. It's why it's not unheard of for adjunct profs to be on some form of welfare to make ends meet.
I suspect it's far more difficult to recruit Computer Science PhDs who will work at these prices, so they probably have to rely on more expensive full-time, tenure-track faculty who likely are paid more than their peers. If you're passionate about teaching or your area of research, you'll probably cope with the lower pay - but that greatly narrows the pool of applicants, especially when FAANGs will pay you 5x more to work for them.
Because despite all high paying jobs being in STEM or economics fields, the enrollment is actually dropping in those directions. And yes this is very confused by recovery from COVID, but the reality is that there was a dropping trend that started long before COVID, and today CS (or Math, or Physics, or economics for that matter) enrollment hasn't even recovered to the point it would have been at had the drop continued without COVID happening.
But yes last year we saw an increase, for obvious reasons, and the speed at which enrollment is currently dropping is lower than it was before COVID, but there's still less STEM graduates every year. Not just in the US, essentially everywhere.
On top of that young people are still running away from STEM degrees to liberal arts degrees of various kinds (but that doesn't work as well as you'd think because there's other problems there). Not even to all of liberal arts, just a few core directions.
Barring significant open-source contributions or stellar leetcode skillz, the path to an entry-level tech job in the valley or NYC will be a challenge.
I went to a top-25 CS program in a flyover state without tech jobs, and only the top 5-10% of the graduating class made it to a major tech hub within 5 years. Granted, there a personal reasons to not leave, but still.
Maybe the computer engineering is vastly underpaid compared to computer science but, I guess they can’t attract computer science professors and or students ??? It seems very odd.
Sure, but ChatGPT is magnifying developer productivity so demand for IT people will continue to decrease. Plus outsourcing. This is also consistent with the theme that more people are being pushed into the trades. Remove other technical options and you get more people learning to weld instead.
> Mining Engineering; Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering; Civil Engineering;
Energy Land Management with Environmental and Energy Resource Management;
Forest Resource Management with Wood Science and Technology;
Agribusiness Management with Environmental and Natural Resource Economics
That list is not what I would expect as having a hard time in West Virginia.
Most of these sound more like job titles than degrees. There are a few foundational disciplines that are buried in a sea of vocational disciplines. What happened to learning the fundamentals and gaining the rest through work experience? Most of these should not exist.
What does one do with a DEGREE in Chinese? As opposed to not getting a degree in Chinese but spending 4 years learning it while getting a degree in, I dunno, materials science or something.
3. Dual degree with any number of degrees (e.g., business, art, etc.) that have natural pairings due to demands in the labor market (although not sure how much demand in West Virginia specifically).
On a more real but anecdotal note, I know many language majors who have moved to the/a target language country for a year or more after graduation, and they learned more about what types of bilingual jobs were available. That led them to either get a job in one of those areas or skill up in some way (typically going back to school) to get the skills and/or credentials they needed to get the job they wanted.
On a personal note, even though I wasn’t a Japanese major, I went to Japan after college to learn Japanese better. My idea was to learn Japanese and become an “international lawyer” with a focus on Japan.
I met a few folks who did that exact job in Japan, and most of them were miserable. Needless to say, I changed the direction of my career.
> What was the source or cause of their misery, and how sure were you that the correlation wasn't spurious?
Great question!
In their words, the legal work wasn’t that interesting, the business side (rain making) could be infuriating due to cultural differences, working in Japan wasn’t that interesting after the honeymoon period, and living in Japan wasn’t something they wanted to do long term with their family.
I will add that some ambitious folks who worked in firms that had locations back in the US kind of felt like second class citizens in their own firms, even though they were driving quite a bit of revenue at the time.
Having worked in Japan myself (since I spoke with them), I can add some things that they probably thought but didn’t say:
1. Trying to explain American anything to someone who thinks that the Japanese way is the best way and should be the only way around the world gets old after a while. These folks existed in Japan in droves at that time (90s). It’s better now, but they still exist. Note that this knife cuts both ways — trying to explain Japanese ways to Americans who think the American way is the best and only way gets old as well. I’ve done both. If you want to get technical, it usually boils down to the “international” person being at a higher stage of adult cognitive development than the local (see Robert Kegan for an example of what these levels look like). Given that some US legal concepts seem counterintuitive or even unfair even to Americans, you can imagine how added layers of a different culture and a different legal system might meet some resistance from Japanese clients.
2. Raising a family in Japan, even in Tokyo, can present challenging issues. Even if everything is covered in terms of cost (housing, schooling, travel, etc.), there is still the issue of the constantly rotating cast of characters of your co-workers, friends, classmates (for kids), etc. Also, some spouses get very antsy and/or dissatisfied for a variety of reasons. If costs are not covered, it takes a lot of money or a lot of compromise to make things work.
3. I’m fairly certain that one or more of the folks I spoke with actually didn’t speak much Japanese — they were top notch legal practitioners who had interpreters do whatever speaking needed to be done. While one could live in Tokyo fairly well without speaking a word of Japanese, it would be a very shallow experience, imho.
There are a lot of things I could say about the legal profession in general. They aren’t related to Japan at all, but they may have contributed to the misery these folks were experiencing.
While certain areas of law fascinate me (Berkman Center stuff can be quite interesting), I’m glad I didn’t become a lawyer in general, and a lawyer in Japan in particular.
> Is there any hope of becoming proficient enough at chinese to compete for these jobs when you're just starting in your late teens?
Yes… sort of.
First, folks who have learned the language as adults are often better at teaching early stages of language learning. Bilingual folks may know what is right or sounds right, but they may not know why.
Second, folks who are bilingual mostly by speaking the language in their home often have a very limited scope of knowledge of the language. The range of language needed to teach at a university or to a higher level of proficiency (beyond tourist level) requires a much wider range of target language knowledge.
Third, for folks who want to become a professor, their research will matter much more than their ability to teach the nuts and bolts of the language.
Lastly, at most universities that teach Chinese, you have mostly if not exclusively grad students from China teaching the pure language stuff. Someone who has a major in Chinese will be teaching literature, linguistics, culture, or something similar.
Bilingual could allow you to work in some capacity. But in teaching those people really don't always know why. Why is something correct or why is something wrong. What is probably a good learning path. Just think of average native speaker. They can tell that something is wrong, but they can't always explaining in common framework why is it wrong.
And then if you get money involved, you probably want version in both languages or even more. And those have to be correct exactly.
Yes. I have lived in China for about five years, and while I myself am not yet fluent, I have met several foreigners who started learning Chinese in their twenties and who are completely fluent and can speak like native speakers. I have almost met Chinese people who have never lived abroad, started learning English in their teens, and who speak English as fluently as a native. I think it's all about the immersion and the willingness to keep up with it.
If you're not fluent in Chinese, how could you tell if someone speaks Chinese like a native?
I'm only a native speaker of English, but I know vast swathes of native Chinese speakers who have been in the US for decades and sound nothing like native English speakers. I know ones that do sound like native speakers too, but it's rare in my experience.
I don't think immersion is anywhere close to sufficient to guarantee native-like proficiency, there's something else.
Because I have been with them in group settings, and although I am not fluent I understand a lot. They can speak at native speed and are never confused about what is being said. Basically that's it.
Have you lived abroad? Living in China has dispelled a lot of my previous notions about what is possible when it comes to language. Another person I knew moved to China after college, taught English, and ended up staying her for forty years. My Chinese friend told me that when she speaks to him she forgets he is a foreigner. It happens.
If a native Chinese speaker said that person speaks like a native, then I believe them. However I don't believe it's possible for a non fluent speaker to make that determination.
I think we're on the same page with regards to whether a non native speaker can reach native levels. It can happen with a lot of work. But time and immersion alone doesn't do it, I've already said I've seen cases where that didn't work and some where it did.
> Is there any hope of becoming proficient enough at chinese to compete for these jobs when you're just starting in your late teens?
Yes.
(Classroom teaching/formal teaching is not gonna matter much -- consuming lots of Chinese content at just the right level will be much more effective.)
> I feel like one would never stand a chance against someone who was raised in a bilingual house.
Actually, you might. A lot of them are not raised with Mandarin -- or if they are, a heavily accented form of Mandarin. You can go straight to Mandarin.
You might also have another advantage. If you put in the work, you will learn how to read and write. A lot of the bilingual types raised outside of China have not put in the hours and are basically illiterate in Chinese.
And finally, your ability to communicate in Chinese -- or any foreign language -- is not just a question of fluency or having as little accent as possible. It is very much a matter of how you choose to express yourself. IQ matters a lot here. Donald Tusk (former PM of Poland, former President of the European Council) is a great As an example of someone who was able to express himself very well, despite a poor grasp of English.
There can be big benefits to being white in Asia for these kinds of jobs. They want to employ a foreign/"exotic" businessman to give them credibility. If you were raised bilingual, odds are you're Chinese and just fit in there.
MTL with some editing is probably enough even without gpt for the lowest end.
Then you can get some hobbyist or Chinese person for next tier.
But you will probably always want professional for legal and contractual work, translating international treaties and interpretation at high level. We might get somewhere close, but I think for situations like UN you will always want live person at least some of the time.
In theory it makes perfect sense to cut the degree programs and keep (perhaps smaller or at least lower overhead) departments as pure service depts.
The problem is that, in practice, tiny majors use of very few resources for non-service courses. As a result, the savings from cutting the major are much lower than expected and realizing those savings requires gutting the departments service capacity as well.
Plus you lose all your half decent faculty — and especially the ones who aren’t already senile and/or retired in place.
Usually, if you really do need the service courses, it is better to keep the major but adjust compensation and resource allocation for under-subscribed upper division courses. See math departments as a case study.
Presumably the people coming through these programs are a drop in the ocean next to number of Americans fluent in Chinese and Spanish, and likely able to teach it at quite a high level without a specific degree for that language.
Legal studies seems most surprising for me. I thought that those were the expensive, but cheap to teach subjects. Which would make sense from cost perspective. Optimize the cost to return.
Probably because it's not a very useful exit. The most successful law school applicants have degrees like history, classics, or math. A degree in legal studies (1) doesn't rank for getting into law school (or if it does, it's clearly not the what law schools want), (2) Looks a little useless/incomplete if you stop after the bachelor and don't go to law school.
FWIW people with 2 or 4 year degrees in law or justice and no other education seem to become probation officers in my experience, so I'm all for WVU sending that one into the ocean.
Thanks for posting this list. Makes it seem like practical decisions from my point of view.
The list you provide looks to me like a college that believes anyone in arts can actual pursue their own path and ambitions. The way the arts work this could go unnoticed if the instructors do it correctly.
This looks to me like a college that is trying to break out of the traditional liberal arts idea into more focused instruction. This will work out for students that are focused.
I went to a four year art school and I would have loved the art history department being disbanded. I was talking to my freshman year roommate and his quote was something like this.
"They knew I choose this school because I can't do that work, so why do they make us take art history."
Well the first and biggest problem is that phd students are INSANELY cheap teaching labor. Math PhD programs run at a loss in absolute terms, but almost never compared to the alternative of having to pay market rate for summer instructors and TA/grading labor.
More to your point though: who in their right mind wants tenure after doing a useful PhD in math?
Math phds can be extremely remunerative if you focus on studying useful topics, avoid abstract nonsense, pick up domain knowledge, and stay the heck away from low paying teaching jobs like “professor” and “instructor”. Finance, biotech, and tech all pay good math phds comparable to or better than big tech pays mediocre CS phds. Mid six to low seven.
It’s a surprisingly low bar, since most math phds are incredibly romantic about choice of research area.
> Math phds can be extremely remunerative if you focus on studying useful topics, avoid abstract nonsense, pick up domain knowledge, and stay the heck away from low paying teaching jobs like “professor” and “instructor”.
Biometric systems engineering cut huh? Looks like that play to the FBI to convert miners into biometrics staffers for CJIS in Clarksburg didn’t play out huh?
I'm from Canada so maybe this is more typical of the US, but does anyone else find these degree programs a bit odd? Like here, we get a degree in Computer Science, or in Biology, or in Life Sciences, or Health Sciences (I will say, those last three can get a bit weirdly specific) but I've never heard anyone say that they are getting a degree in 'Human and Community Development'. That seems so specific so as to reduce the value in getting a degree.
At some point I wants to say to these backward states: may it be as you ask. Fine, turn your back on the fruits of humankind's knowledge and development. But of course, they have children; even if they do not care for them, we must.
Looks like there's a lot of emphasis on children's theater and education, and it's one of maybe two such majors in the US. Sounds like a great program!
Children’s education is obviously important, but the degree on the paper doesn’t indicate what you studied in my opinion. Just want folks spending the money to get full credit.
Try to imagine a world without any 3D graphics industry, which within living memory grew whole cloth out of puppetry, model-building, and related fx work.
(I watched puppeteers at my university giving soldering lessons to the freshman EEs. These days I suspect they're leading practical 3D printing.)
Fair point! You're right - I made some assumptions based on its merger into theater rather than something like film or effects or engineering. Pushed me toward a focus on marionettes rather than how to build a puppet, how to engineer puppets, etc, how to use them in film, etc.
I recommend this website [0] for some details about how they got into this situation. Included are comparisons to peers (public Big XII schools), which are considerably better off. Hilariously, over the past 3 years, WVU was unable to generate actionable data on costs & revenues of their academic programs, though they spent over $1mm on consultants specifically for this purpose and pay $3mm annually on internal roles whose job functions have considerable overlap and include doing this type of work. Administration hired a second consultancy for the same purpose in 2023.
This is essentially written by bitter ex or current employees.
Professors often approach public debate by assuming everyone else is braindead, rather than puzzling through conflicting information.
For example, they immediately dismiss the president's claim that a demographic change contributes to this issue as "false" because the US birth rate may have been very stable. But that says nothing about parents in the WVU area, which we know are either older or moved to other states.
> This is essentially written by bitter ex or current employees.
I imagine if you worked at a place for over a decade, then saw it being run into the ground at speed by people earning 5-10x your salary, some bitterness may emerge.
The bitterness of current and former employees, alums, and many people around the state, does not detract from several excellent points made by the piece. To read it and wholly dismiss it is questionnable (especially with a birthrate comment).
Birthrate in the "WVU area" should be considered, but consider a couple datapoints: Total enrollment overall increased [0] year over year for both 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, and over half of WVU students come from outside WV [1]
I'm interested for your thoughts on the excellent points.
Exaggerating for conciseness: I put in a good 20 minutes. Got left with a dizzied feeling of a gish gallop or perhaps motte and bailey, repeated.
The only helpful part was the end, where they clearly implicate one person and identify the problem as pushing for growth in 2014, failing to recognize it had failed and pivot after realizing shrinking was actually the trend line. None of this required any of the rest.
The rest seemed to fall into:
1. Leadership should have looked at $SMALL_SET_OF_COMPARABLE_INSTANCES projections to identify their projections must be wrong.
2. $SMALL_SET_OF_COMPARABLE_INSTANCES had a smaller shortfall[2].
3. Confusing long segments recounting slight differences in statements made multiple months apart. [3]
[2] Ended up closing it once it felt like #2 had several repetitions in a row, it doesn't matter if there's a smaller shortfall somewhere else, shortfalls add up to a shortfall.
[3] for example, lengthy recountings of Official $X said 2025 is where the real trouble is, but they also said next 5 years are important, and birth data shows 2006 was the start of a new era of lows, and 2006 + 18 = 2024.
Yes, undergraduate enrollment is increasing, but many of the programs recommended for closure are graduate programs. Depending on the graduate program, the audience may be primarily local residents.
Also, if we look at graduate enrollments for WVU they are at best flat with some programs ascending and some declining. Notably, and this is a national trend, M.S. degrees are growing in popularity and M.A. degrees are declining in popularity. The recommended program closures are almost all in the humanities and so this is all in alignment.
The administration and colleges in general could probably do better at pointing out how many programs they have opened over the past decade as it would probably be a similar number. Generally colleges and universities are bad about this type of messaging because they do not have to do it very often.
I lived in a small Rust Belt city, dropped out of college, waited tables, built a restaurant management app, sold it, by the grace of God made it to a FAANG.
Everything I've learned and surprised me over 7 years there fits into exactly what you said, "[smart cloistered people without exposure to costs] often approach debate by assuming everyone else is braindead, rather than puzzling through conflicting information"
It costs so, so, much, especially when you throw in the rush everyone is in.
The enrollment cliff is well documented and real and does not impact all universities equally. A college that has a very high acceptance rate, such as WVU will likely feel the impact of the enrollment cliff more than others.
Initial enrollment is also not the same as enrollment at census. Colleges experience some level of "melt" which is the number of students who end up not showing up or otherwise leaving in the first couple months of their first year. Again, I would imagine that WVU with their high acceptance rate would experience outsized melt compared to their peers.
> though they spent over $1mm on consultants specifically for this purpose and pay $3mm annually on internal roles whose job functions have considerable overlap and include doing this type of work. Administration hired a second consultancy for the same purpose in 2023.
This style of consulting is usually a performative act because the people who should be making decisions don't have or don't feel like they have the authority to make decisions.
Paying $X million for an outside consultancy to come up with the decision, gives the decision authority. Of course, the consultancy is usually guided to the 'right' decision, either implicitly or explicitly. Although sometimes you see failures of guidance, where against incentives the consultancy delivers a good recommendation and then it's usually ignored.
Anyway, this is a grift, but who's going to turn down $1M to tell someone what they already know?
IMHO, the more grifty consultancy is systems building, where you set up a $10M contract over ten years to build a system that doesn't work and doesn't actually replace the old system. But maybe that's just performative too: nobody wants to say to just keep the old system, so spending time and money on something everyone knows won't work and won't be ready before you leave makes it look like you're doing the right thing?
There's also non-grift consulting. You might pay a real expert a reasonable sum for an engineering consult, etc.
Closing an academic program, let alone 32, will be extremely unpopular among faculty so much so that it might lead to a vote of no confidence. Using a consulting firm as a political shield is likely necessary if you want to make such a move and maintain your position as president.
You pay the consulting firm ~ 1 million, they confirm what you already know, "these 32 programs are costing the University 10 million or whatever a year with few enrollments. The only logical thing to do is to close those programs and reallocate those funds." You, as the president, hide behind a report from an independent third party but still get to make the correct but unpopular opinion to cut bloat.
I could see the point of consulting if what you were paying for was genuine expertise that you lack in house, but often consultants are just know-nothings fresh out of university.
So another layer to the consultancy grift is consulting agencies who scam and delude the consultants themselves. Consultants are often just glorified temps who end up doing same sort of of grunt work as employees, but have much less job security and therefore potential to unionise. Big companies like a workforce that can't organise, and pay consulting agencies this for precariousness as a service.
A million spent on consulting is a million worth of written proof of how seriously they are taking the problem. And it's even quantifiable! ("million"), yay! As a convenient side effect, it makes the problem you have just proven to be in your focus appear more important, what's not to like. In the end the consultants are basically paid to send a bill.
When you hire a consultant as a public university for a contract over a certain amount of money, you need to put out a request for proposals and evaluate consultant proposals.
As part of that, they can put in requirements for consultant staff, require proposals show time allotment for staff and tie billing to hours actually put in.
So if you hired a consultant and got nothing but fresh out of university know nothings its because you did it on purpose, or you are inept both at writing RFPs and also evaluating proposals, and maybe at managing consultants as well.
That being said, most of the time, outside of a few cases where the expertise is hard to find anywhere and you literally cannot find it outside of consultants, I'm of the opinion that the money spent on consultants would be better spent building that specialty knowledge in house.
My experience is consulting falls into three categories, and this is specific to higher education.
1. We can't afford the expert we need forever so we consult temporarily. Like major IT infrastructure. Colleges and universities tend to not attract the massively high quality tech workers that private industry does.
2. We know what is wrong, but internal politics or external politics keep us from saying and doing things we need to do. In this instance, consultants come in to tell us what we already know, but lets managers avoid responsibility for damaging relationships/politics.
3. We got a grant. Let's spend it on consultants because the prof that wrote it left last semester and his "notes" are like the necronomicon.
I usually work with number 2 when I consult (there is a Midwest school that still refers to me as the grim reaper because of all the firings that happened after I completed my findings report). But I would argue that number 1 is more common, in my experience.
Accurate. I forgot that. And in the higher education realm, these are always related to discrimination of some kind by an employee or department that is a known issue that hadn't been addressed.
I wonder how much more of this "middle class" of colleges we will see hollowed out over the next few years/decades.
So many of these places are in really serious financial straits. Families are more and more unwilling to pay, and students are taking the possibility of trade/vocational school seriously.
Harvard will be fine. Stanford will be fine. Prestigious schools could last for quite a long while on their endowments alone, and besides, the Ivies have no shortage of eager customers. The brand value is too strong.
And I actually think 1) biiiiig state schools 2) small community colleges will mostly be fine. The government support is there, and the bang-for-your-buck is there.
But the middle-tier private university might be a dying breed.
In the US, community colleges general offer 2 year trade degrees. WVU is a typical public university offering 4 year bachelor (and above) degrees. It’s the kind of public school we want to keep around and well-run.
Community College is awesome and should be encouraged more. Too many people seem to fall prey to these "resort-style" universities where the education quality might be marginally better but not worth the 2-4x price difference.
Again, community colleges typically don't offer the same degrees as public or private universities. They're great for knocking out general education requirements like history or bowling, because why pay the full price for the requirements outside your major. They're also outstanding at trades like plumbing or HVAC. But at least in the states I've lived in, you usually can't get a 4 year degree from them. If you want a bachelor's of math or comp sci or chemistry, you'll have to get it from a university.
I graduated from a public state-run university and I've been completely happy with the quality of my education. It was actually affordable. A community college is something different.
I mean they should hollow out, its the employer’s deficiency that it lazily began screening for college degrees over the past 60 years
All these colleges are grifts on that concept
The upper class higher learning of Ivy League and adjacent predate this prerequisite, are tone death to the reasons that students attend for job eligibility over actual higher learning or satisfying a clause in a trust fund, and will survive this time period where students are there for jobs. These things are 300 years old in the US, the last half century and the tailend pushes for inclusion will totally be a footnote in their dynasty
Much like Mr. Katz of the linguistics program I have bias because of the amount of time that I spent in the Linguistics department as well as the departments of multiple foreign languages in college. In addition to my linguistics major, I took classes in Chinese, Japanese, French, and German. It's also been quite a long time since then, and things have surely changed. So, with that bias out in the open:
I think that the discussions here generally underestimate how much these language programs contribute to university life beyond just a degree:
1. Will international students be attracted to this university with no program that represents their native language? My experience was that a lot of Chinese students spent quite a lot of time in the Chinese department, even if their focus was engineering.
2. In the same vein, what meaningful partnerships will WVU have with non-English speaking institutes of higher education in the future? Seems like not very many! Even if computers will do the translating in the future, we're still talking about a global economy and relationships are important.
3. What about students of all disciplines (history especially comes to mind) that are interested in texts that weren't published in English. jUSt uSe gOoGlE? I'm rolling my eyes. There's still plenty of knowledge for English speakers in non-English texts.
Provincial is the word that comes to mind, which I think of as the opposite of "Education".
This is interesting, Gordon Gee is their current President. He was the president at Ohio State while I was there he was well-loved by the students and would routinely make appearances at off-campus parties and pose for photos with students. He also had a razor-sharp memory for people and recognized me multiple times when I bumped into him. But that wasn't his strongest suit, he was a fund raising machine, that man brought a lot of money into the university from alumni and other donors. I'm shocked to hear that WVU is having financial issues under his leadership.
My freshman year at WVU was the year Gee took over as president. That was definitely his thing to ingratiate himself to the students. The whole frost couple weeks he would go up and down frat row, and through all the big house parties and shake hands, pose for pictures, etc. He quickly got this vibe as the "cool dad" with his cute bow ties. This won the student body over easily, so we were confused when our professors were really bummed about it. Apparently word gets around on your management style and spending habits.
The dude ripped through money he didn't have, hired a ton of bloat, and is now cutting staff in nearly all the programs I held dear.
While they have many skills, connections being one of the most useful to their employer, my theory is that the greatest skill of executives is the ability to gain credit and avoid blame. They hone that razor sharp and wield it constantly to achieve their positions.
Seemingly the president (a weird title, but okay) of that university brings in about US$750k / year - and is also noteworthy for being one of the highest paid public university presidents for some time[1] - netting US$6m for 2013 from Ohio, while stepping down from there after making some inappropriate comments.
My point is slightly tangential to the above - one might expect one of the most highly paid professionals in this role to be highly skilled, and to avoid this kind of oversight or blindsiding.
Are we even sure this is a bad thing for the school? Sounds like they are streamlining their business, just with a lot of the usual useless administrative bloat and incompetence slowing it down.
The administrative bloat and incompetence is why they're in the position to cut academic programs in the first place. You seem to think the tail is wagging the dog.
> WVU produced $102,684,423 in revenue, which was a decrease from the $110.5 million produced by the department the previous year. However, it was still more than enough to cover the program’s $91,807,281 in expenses.
Football isn't broken out here, but it generally subsidizes other sports, so if you wipe out the football program, you aren't going to help the deficit.
Most of the men's football and basketball programs revenue covers the cost for all the other sports and typically have some leftover for the university.
Medicaid spending-- driven by huge federal incentives-- is crowding out state dollars for higher education. Medicaid enrollment has increased 50% in WV in the last decade (while the state population has declined). The US is making a policy choice to funnel more of GDP into a wildly inefficient health care system to support obese and aging populations, instead of funding K-12 and higher education.
We are screwed on healthcare and most of the proposed "solutions" will only make things worse.
We need smart legislation to eliminate global free ridership on medication as well as less insurance, not more (combined with universal catastrophic high deductible insurance a la Singapore's medishield). We also need occupational licensing reform and to decouple healthcare from employment (ie. the politically impossible cadillac tax that Obama tried to push through).
Shielding people more from the true cost of healthcare is the politically popular option but does not improve health outcomes and drives utilization (and thus resource allocation) higher.
Medicaid enrollment went way up but federal spending growth remained relatively close to the trend. They didn't even overhaul the system to combat the price gouging that is going on. To me this trial run proves the opposite of your conclusion: the US would be able to afford public healthcare if it adopted an intelligent model. We need to set the bar higher as a society when it comes to social well-being, not pull back on our ambitions.
In a situation with declining proportion of working age population (and lack of sufficient automation to offset it), one will lead to the other, as more and more of the share of resources from the working population are reallocated to the non working population.
It's not so much a choice that we take pride in doing but a problem we have boxed ourselves into. Path dependency sucks. The benefit of a republic is that huge political shifts happen over a long period of time. Sharp changes only happen in response to an immediate crisis. Normally the system rewards grafting yet another patch onto the existing system instead of throwing it out and setting an entirely new set of rules.
Medical services became much more effective when physicians accepted scientific methods. Allopathic physicians used state licensing to restrict who could call themselves a physician. Due to post WWII price controls employers offered health insurance. Baby boomers did not grow up with the existence of all the drugs we have or neonatal intensive care units. People are still considered alive after their heart stops beating. Standards of care went up. Health workers' scopes of practice are carefully circumscribed by their license which does not transfer across state lines. The government agreed to pay for the medical costs of the elderly and poor, letting private health insurance skim profits from the lower cost working age population. Attempts to rationalize the system via a National Health Service, single payer financing, or heavy regulations on a universal private insurance market have failed. Instead the ACA just plugged the most egregious pitfalls for Americans and tinkered around the edges to try get everyone insured. Some states have chosen to not expand Medicaid to the detriment of their indigent population and rural hospitals.
If medical costs are to ever stop growing at 6% per annum the end result will likely be due to a combination of price controls, wait times and limits on care to hold down demand, lower health worker pay, free training for health workers, and rationalization of the system to incentivize population wide health. Switching from fee for service to per capita removes the incentive to treat more to generate more revenue. If universal eligibility is achieved that removes the incentive to refuse service to uninsured patients or discharge them ASAP. When outcomes are measured for the health sector as a whole, problems like hospital re-admissions or high co-pays that result in some patients not filling their medication orders get a harder look instead of being a perverse gain for one business and a bigger cost for the rest of us. Right now healthcare is run as a business. Each firm optimizes for the profitability of their link in the chain. The government tries to help those left behind by loading money into the top of the medical-industrial complex without ever making changes to the Rube Goldberg machine within.
And according to this pdf, "Between FY 1980 and FY 2001, after being adjusted for inflation, federal on-budget program funds for [...] postsecondary education funds declined 33 percent." https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002129.pdf
As a graduate of WVU during the Gee era we all saw this coming he is a terrible president, only known for his bow ties. I notice that they eliminate majors and cut faculty but no word on the admin staff they’ve been bloating for years. Shame on Gee and WVU.
I kinda like this, if only because I already believe that the way universities in the US are structured is very ossified and some kind of shock is definitely inevitable. I mean.. we'd rather everyone be able to take whatever degree they want, learn a lot, and still be able to afford life and get good employment after. But given that that's not really working and shows no sign of changing, some kind of "phase transition" is necessary. Hopefully whatever emerges on the other side is better somehow.
That's an...optimistic point of view, especially given the departments being threatened are not the source of the university's financial troubles and this "transformation" process doesn't promise to address the things which are.
Yeah true. I don't mean to argue this is a good end state. Just that the threat of 'colleges as we know them are going to vanish' might get people to start caring about fixing them.
It would be interesting to see the admin staff to faculty ratio at WVU and if there are any recommendations to trim that. Many universities spend more on administration than faculty.
I graduated from the CS program in the late 00s and have interviewed grads of the program over the years since. The old, out of touch professors that were there then are still there today. Many of the good professors teaching useful, applicable skills moved on to greener pastures. The "reduce staff" guidance should motivate the department to cut off that dead weight, but it won't. They'll keep the worst and tank the program more.
The program has also taken the position that it's more important to teach the theory than any hands on application of skills in a modern environment. It's a disservice to the students because they graduate not knowing how to use something as pervasive as git. The program's faculty and administration - already gainfully employed - aren't the ones being turned down for jobs for being unqualified after all. They get to carry on with their cushy lifestyles existing outside of reality.
Make no mistake - there are quality professors and talented people coming out of the program. It's just that the quality professors aren't the ones setting the course of the program, and the talented students would probably have been as successful no matter which school they attended.
It's so frustrating to know that the program could be more, it just chooses not to. So goes the story of West Virginia.
This is sad to see as a WVU CS grad. WVU is pretty much the only place to go outside of Marshall and some teeny tiny schools if you're in WV.
I suspect a lot of this has to do with bad management by Gee and admin bloat, but the state is poor as shit. Most talented students go to WVU on scholarship, and get the fuck out of the state ASAP. It can't be easy to keep a state school funded when nearly every graduate of that school's #1 goal is to bail out of the state.
So music and dance fields are not impacted, but a host of enginering and computer science fields are? What? Do these departments really not bring in any grant money?
That’s exactly wrong. Who’s going to take care of the olds if the youngs aren’t educated? If the young have lower incomes, who are the olds going to tax?
School shutdowns and scale-backs are an effective path toward insuring a country drives off a cliff with their foot on the gas pedal.
One might rationally ask if all colleges should offer all things for all people. I know they don't strictly do this, but I think there is more overlap in functions than there should be.
When looking at colleges for my kids, I was impressed by the consortium of schools in western Massachusetts (UMass Amherst, Amherst, Hampshire, Smith, Mount Holyoke) that allowed the smaller schools to concentrate on specific areas, while at the same time giving students the ability to take courses in other fields from the other schools in the consortium (mostly at UMass). Maybe more schools should do more of this.
They're also dropping the mathematics department, getting rid of the graduate program and keeping a skeleton crew, I guess to teach other majors, somehow. It's unclear how that will work given that graduate students often do a lot of teaching and assisting.
I think the reduction/dropping of technology majors such as software engineering will make getting into WV Institute of Technology harder, due to more competition. It currently has a 68% acceptance rate, which is not low. I would be more ok with this is the money was being shifted to WV IT, so they could improve programs and support more students.
A university setting with university-grade tuition prices isn't the best place to be learning a language. Something like Duolingo is much cheaper and better too. There's no reason to start to learn a language from someone with a PhD is some form of literature in that language.
You just don't understand what's in a language degree. Also do you know a single person who has ever learned to actually speak a language with duolingo?
It is more efficient to hire a native speaker educated in a foreign language who speaks good English to teach the language than it is to educate an English speaker in the foreign language well enough to teach it.
Colleges of the humanities may need to completely separate themselves from universities. The bloat of college tuition simply makes those fields of study uneconomical on a fundamental level, and it is only getting worse.
Choose, be in debt for most of the cost of a new house on graduation with no employment prospects, or major in something more focused? Yeah.
The professors of these programs are generally all old and simply riding out tenure to retirement, just like all boomers. And what will happen when they retire? I predict there won't be tenured professors in huge swathes of humanities, just adjuncts ... everywhere. Basically, TAs for whatever classes the revenue majors demand for at least SOME depth.
You may need to have entirely new institutions form around humanities without labs, housing, football stadiums, etc. Maybe they are adjacent/satellite to the main institutions. A throwback to basically what higher education used to be without the Oxford look. Basically, small cloister of students. And good lord, eliminate ALL the goddamn vampire management. Really, the professors will need it for getting any decent salary. Get rid of all those useless middle managers. Contract out teaching humanities to the big-fish university they are nearby.
And is this the hallmark of the breaking point of universities? I roll my eyes at humanities as much as another science guy, but they are still a living core of real higher education. Hollowing out humanities means the soul of a college is dead. It's just a bunch of grade-seeking premeds, MBAs, etc.
What does humanities need? A classroom, a blackboard, chalk. Even a big library isn't that necessary with internet resources.
What are you taking from these photos? That they're not tenured? They're all young and not riding it out to retirement? Several of themn look to all have been copied over from a previous version of wordpress in sept 2021 so they're many are at least 2 years old. Speaking from photos at a big company, a large number of people who are senior folks have college looking photos and they're entering their 60s.
My point being I'm not sure what you can tell from those photos.
Which is horrible, humanities are needed now more than ever. I am unable to count the number of tech and business grads who have no appreciation for ethics, or art, or community.
Yea, we need to train them that their opinions are wrong regarding whatever arbitrary thing the various elite classes think today. That their wrong think only gets in the way of the things we want.
Uninformed opinion is like an animal instinct — it means nothing.
If your knowledge of philosophy mostly comes from Stocism memes, you don’t know much. The existence of widespread belief in reptilian overlords and other stupid shit is evidence of people hungry for understanding, but who lack the knowledge to overcome their ignorance.
The older I get, the more I would agree with that statement. Tech and business grads without a classical humanities side-education tend to become the worst people, hyperspecializinh on things that maximise profits at the cost of human suffering and environmental destruction.
How do people not understand selection? Regardless think of all the world’s warmongers. Almost none were engineers. All the colonizers were humanities guys. Hitler and his top guys were art and humanities guys. Every president who bombs the innocent has been a history or poli sci major.
Haha, let's delve into the humanities core: what is evil?
Money is the root of all evil! Specifically, money is means where whatever evil was done to achieve some amassing of "wealth", once converted successfully into "money" it is washed of its sins and passed onward to successive generations with no exposure. This is a core of money combined with the limited liability corporation, the other major sociopath-washing mechanism of capitalism.
Examples:
- southern chattel slavery
- oil/gas earnings with global warming
- cigarette industry
- prohibition-era criminal organizations, or really any outright organized criminals that manage to launder their money successfully
- Chinese and Russian oligarchs exfiltrating their fortunes to the West
The core component to the concept of money at the level of the elite is ethical and moral laundering.
No they just don’t appreciate the ethics they say are the right ones, the art they say are the important ones, and the community they say is the better one.
Most this crap is propagandized via the slow walk through the institutions. Scumbag grievance studies have bloated the humanities and have infected respectable studies like philosophy. They’ve become focused on what to think, not how to.
If I wanted moralizing I’d go to church. At least they have the ethical decency to make paying optional to hear their opinions on how I should live.
I don't know about art, I think a lot of these grads you speak of are just myopic and ambitious, but ethics and community traditionally has been the domain of religion and family. Trusting humanity professors and a few college credits to serve that role seems like you are asking too much.
A world without art? There’d still be plenty of art even if we didn’t saddle gullible teenagers with lifelong unserviceable debt to fund the study of art
It's actually the other way around. Universities were originally for humanities, and science and engineering got attached. Maybe we just need separate engineering schools.
I completely agree, which is part of why I wonder if a reset is needed. The science and engineering produce the money in the economy, and the MBAs that flocked to universities in the last decades have started beancounting to only that stuff.
Humanities, despite my little crack at them, are unquestionably the heart and soul of the institutions/foundations of higher learning of the last 2000+ years.
The fact that the university system is being so thoroughly disrupted over the course of just 20-30 years is really appalling.
Let me double down with something: the heart of the value proposition for college to employers (well, before AI) was the stratification and demonstration of intellectual labor ability. Humanities may not have as many direct employment skills as some of the sciences do, but it still has a lot of value hiring a philo major from Yale versus a Sociology major from Arizona State University.
So the humanities needs to form new associations with the exclusivity, without their tuition revenues being siphoned off to vanity buildings, administrator/MBA salaries, etc.
If you can offer "good college" hiring value / eliteness of degree but at half cost tuition to the students, you would have a HUGE value proposition.
It's always taken a long time to build up the exclusivity. If one could "hack" an institute of higher learning quickly it would be a revolution.
Perhaps some well-connected elite guy with elite schools proposes to some admin doofus at the school a way to attach the institute to them and give them revenue (which is ALL they care about, have any of you seen all the satellite univerisities in Saudi Arabia???), dress it up as a "specialist think tank" or something.
Likely no way to grass roots build the reputation.
"humanities experts" probably exist only at top tier (ivy league and top state) colleges, but the rest of colleges - I have very bad news about the level of their expertise. They are seriously no better than llm
We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact support@wvgazettemail.com or call 304-348-5140.”
We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact support@wvgazettemail.com or call 304-348-5140.
It is very ironic that HTTP code 451 was originally added so it could be used to mark censorship (i.e., forced upon the publisher by legal means), but now it is almost exclusively used by sites that want to set cookies in a way that doesn't conform to GDPR, and so inhibiting access to information (i.e., chosen because of laws inconvenient to the publisher).
West Virgina is on the vanguard of US states in this sort of thing. I'm surprised they beat Florida and Texas though.
Ten years from now, how many more public university systems will have jettisoned their world language departments? Does anyone believe it will be a small number?
World languages majors in some respects seem like an anachronism in an age of globalization and machine translation. For low-end work, Google translate will do it for free, and for the high-end market, why not just hire someone with native fluency of both languages? It's hard for a four-year college degree to compete with immersion learning.
> For low-end work, Google translate will do it for free
This is a terrible take. Google Translate is really not at a level where it can provide consistent and reliable results, that convey exactly the same meaning as the original texts.
“Low-level work” is also not a thing. Either you need a professional translator, or you don’t.
> and for the high-end market, why not just hire someone with native fluency of both languages?
So you would only need to find people with native fluency in, let’s say, Japanese and German, to get official paperwork translated?
Genius. Can’t wait for a world where there is only one translator for every million people.
Having a 4 year degree in Japanese from some random US flyover state isn’t going to make you fluent enough to translate business contracts anyway. I studied 4 years at a higher-rated university and could barely get by in the language until I studied a lot more on my own
Low-level work is absolutely a thing. For example, I have used automatic translation tools to translate documentation and comments in source code. The results aren't perfect, but they are instant and much better than nothing. The ground truth of the source code is right there as well, so potential errors aren't a significant concern. Having to send translation requests over to an actual human translator every time would have been slow, expensive, and disruptive for my workflow.
Then there is just simple stuff like ordering a product off a Chinese or Japanese site without an English translation. Increasingly they are just machine translating their product descriptions themselves, but it wouldn't be economical to have a human do that for thousands of SKUs.
> I have used automatic translation tools to translate documentation and comments in source code
No one has personally hired professional translators to do this, ever. Before automatic translation happened, there were volunteers. Only corporations had the resources to professionally translate documentation.
And if you are a corporation, you cannot rely on automatic translation for these tasks anyway.
Anyway, your examples illustrate situations where we went from no translation or crappy translation, to reasonably useful. That's just not what translators and interpreters do.
I’ve always been fascinated by the idea of speaking multiple languages, but the basic fact is that technology is clearly going to make the idea of speaking different languages completely irrelevant in the next few years. We’ll all have real time Rosetta stones in our pockets, at which point why not just everyone speak the same language going forward?
I get that there’s something romantic about the idea of regional dialects, but practically speaking in a global world with advanced tech, it’s simply only a point of friction.
I agree with the basic premise that having multiple languages is an annoying point of friction, and it would be great if it could be removed (I have lived in five countries and dealing with government, insurance, doctors, etc. is always a big roadblock).
However, if you have any sort of international exposure beyond holidays, it is abundantly clear that you cannot extricate the language that people speak with the culture and history of a region. Having everyone speak the same language would mean throwing away much of what makes countries unique, because the old language would be forgotten over time. And people won't like that. Politicians won't like that either, as it becomes much harder to push the narrative that "we" are superior and "they" are barbarians, when everything is so uniform.
> you cannot extricate the language that people speak with the culture and history of a region.
This, to me, is the reason for the diversity of language (and the reason for learning foreign languages, and for conserving your own language).
Whether or not a speaker is familiar with his own literary and historical traditions, he relies on them in the idioms he uses, the jokes he makes, and in his understanding of the actions and utterances of others. If everyone in France spoke only English, they'd struggle to understand themselves.
This is the main reason I consider myself a prescriptivist, in lexicographic terms. If you strip your language of what some people consider archaisms, you lose the ability to read the old plays and poetry, the soil from which your culture germinated.
But a universal translator makes it irrelevant if you learn a common language, it’ll allow people to speak their native language without material friction. IMO that’ll be the best thing for preserving a rich linguistic body of languages and dialects.
> technology is clearly going to make the idea of speaking different languages completely irrelevant
Only in certain contexts. Business, transactions, news and, to some degree, science, can all be done with machine translation already. You can literally walk into a store right now somewhere that you don't speak the language and have a full conversation with the staff using Google Translate. But once you move beyond straightforward transactional interactions, start caring about expressing feelings and experiences, or understanding diverse cultures, no translation app is going to help you. I'm not sure how relevant this is in West Virginia, because it's such a culturally homogeneous and isolated place. But in multicultural places and places near cultural borders, it's absolutely essential for harmonious relationships between cultures. What happens when people from West Virginia move to Texas or Florida and start to encounter Spanish in their daily lives? Until they learn Spanish, they're going to build cultural walls that prevent them from seeing and understanding the Spanish speaking culture around them. And that will have profound implications on society at scale.
Personally, I think language learning is important if not for practical reasons, for reasons of personal development. Everyone should become fluent in at least one language other than their native one simply for the ability to see and express different cultural perspectives.
> start caring about expressing feelings and experiences, or understanding diverse cultures
I'd add that speaking in a different language, once you get good enough at it, is just plain fun. Google translate isn't fun, and I don't think it ever will be.
Protip: these magic Rosetta stones you hold in such high regard are trained on corpora of texts translated by professional translators with degrees in translation.
If you think these corpora we have today are enough to power the ML forever and ever until the end of time, then you should have another and better thought instead.
Consider a human who can speak both spanish and english. They can translate intrinsically. Why? Because language is an interface to their knowledge. You do not require a special intermediary language that only trained professionals can teach.
Language -> knowledge (embeddings) -> Language is fine
No, they cannot. (At least not in any meaningful sense.) This will not create new information you can draw upon to improve translations models and keep them up to date.
The model can generate translations and humans can verify that they're accurate enough to be used for training, making corrections if needed. Verifying work is much faster than creating it.
Language eradication was and still is one of the major methods of genocide. Of the remaining 8000 or so human languages still extent, one or another dies every few weeks... and those are just the ones we know about.
There's nothing romantic about this. The proper genre is horror or maybe post-apocalyptic dystopia.
There's something of a control freak thing going on when one who would never want to speak to the people who use these minority languages still insists that they speak the same language as he does.
I think that’s not at all the point being made. In fact it’s quite the opposite. With a real time bi directional universal language translator pervasively available and ergonomically adapted it would be relatively irrelevant which language you spoke. This would in fact be a boon to minority languages or languages outside the language of business and science (today English). It would allow minority languages to flourish without extrinsic pressure to assimilate into more influential languages because its relatively toll free to be monolingual. Most of the pressure outside of planned cultural eradication is economic, and making the economic cost of speaking your native language close to zero is the best way to preserve native languages. Dreaming of mass literacy of minority languages won’t work - its impractical to expect everyone to learn hundreds of languages to meet people at their native tongue, especially in a multicultural society like modern western societies. That’s not a horror; that’s human nature. But technology has the chance to make it irrelevant, allowing people to communicate without assimilation.
That said people will still learn languages to do comparative analysis and out of personal drive. That’s great too.
> With a real time bi directional universal language translator
Those aren’t being developed for most languages of the world, only the fairly large languages where corporations see financial interest. Moreover, due to poverty or censorship that has hindered publication of books and internet content in most languages, most languages do not have a sizeable electronic corpus with which to train MT.
The OP is right, anyone active in this field knows that your MT dream would actually result in massive language loss, as bilingual users of MT technology feel forced to switch from their mother tongue to the regionally powerful language in order to access that MT technology.
Actually GPT-4 is at least marginally capable at almost all languages, and I expect LLMs being as nascent as they are, will become more proficient at more and more languages. The thing is that training a LLM is fundamentally simpler to train than prior NLP translation models. For example, I can carry on a reasonably good conversation with ChatGPT in the ancient dead language of Pali and have it translated into cuneiform, then Chinese, then Esperanto, and to English in a new session and the translation is almost flawless from the original. (I have in fact done this)
If it weren’t for this I would have agreed with you last year. But I see fairly clearly the way to preserve native tongues is to take a base LLM like Llama 2 and fine tune it with your native language. As people are invested in their native language this doesn’t seem unreasonable. As things develop and sharing LLM LoRa becomes easier, I think we will find that universal translator for all spoken languages forthcoming.
But I challenge the notion that not having a translation device assures native languages survive. The same pressures exist. You simply can’t tell the regionally powerful speakers to learn the minority languages and expect them to actually do it. And you can’t expect it to not be a stigma. Humans just don’t work that way, and never have. “When in Rome” applied in Roman times, in our time, and in all times. The only way to eliminate that is to make it not an issue.
> For example, I can carry on a reasonably good conversation with ChatGPT in the ancient dead language of Pali and have it translated into cuneiform
ChatGPT’s ability to translate into Pali or cuneiform is limited by the size of the corpus. As I said, most languages of the world do not have a sizeable electronic corpus, and what has appeared in writing is only a limited portion of those languages. ChatGPT cannot magically guess words or idioms that it was never trained on.
This is well known to anyone working in corpus linguistics. Do you have any formal background in the field?
> As people are invested in their native language this doesn’t seem unreasonable.
Outside a few relatively privileged languages, people are much less invested in their native language than you assume. Due to the pressures of poverty, political oppression, and social stigma, it can be difficult for linguists to even find speakers willing to answer some questions about their language, let alone train MT.
Then it’s up to those that care to preserve languages they care about. I for one am not an advocate that there be no one preserving languages or dedicating their lives to preserving languages. That’s a wonderful thing to do, and we have a tool that they can use to encode those languages for all time in a way that is functionally accessible to all for all time.
Reading the thread I don’t notice any proposal of an alternative. Without that I will still hold onto the idea that we can improve things with the miracles we create in our technologies. While corporations might not feel a profit potential here, surely the open source world has shown we don’t need corporations to do amazing things.
As someone who learnt a foreign to fluency as an adult, I am skeptical of the stronger interpretations of the Sapir Whorf hypothesis. I believe a second language is primarily a source of cultural richness (mutual understanding, interesting vocabulary, intriguing turns of phrase, and so forth) - but not a prerequisite for accessing any novel forms of thinking or reasoning, i.e. I can not recall ever feeling like my thought processes or understanding of the world were fundamentally different to my monolingual colleagues.
I think it depends on how close the two languages are, but also I think that the effect is much more powerful when you are a child and your brain is more malleable.
For example, compared to Western languages, Chinese has very little grammar and words that are more ambiguous and with several meanings. This translates to a way of thinking that is more fuzzy, holistic, and high level, relying more on connections (intuitively, when you don't have grammatical constructs telling you the connection between things, you are forced to seek/guess it by yourself)
> I can not recall ever feeling like my thought processes or understanding of the world were fundamentally different to my monolingual colleagues.
As a native German speaker I, for example, for consider thinking in German (regarding the case system that is deeply ingrained into this language) very much like thinking about types in a type system in a programming language; you have to pass an object [pun intended] of the correct type (genus) to a function/predicate so that the code compiles/the sentence is grammatically correct.
This kind of thinking does not work in English because of its different grammatical structure.
Another example: it is very common in German to analyze words part by part to find "sometimes hidden meanings"). Just one trivial example: "entschweben" [to waft away]: if you analyze the construction of this verb, you see that this is the verb "schweben" [to hover] that is modified with a prefix "ent-" that changes its meaning. This prefix thus works like some higher-order function that modifies the functionality of some existing function (in programming) - or in the given case of language, the meaning of a verb. So, one can really say that how I, as a native German speaker, think about my native language daily often corresponds to quite non-trivial programming concepts.
When I attempted a similar analysis of English words to English native speakers, they soon cut me off and explained to me that "this kind of analysis is not how English works or how English native speakers think about their language".
Think of it as an art form, sure language learning won't be financially necessary going forward but that doesn't mean you won't get personal benefits to learn languages. People never stopped learning to play an instrument even if pretty much anything can be generated by a computer nowadays.
And unlike what you think, this good translation tech will not make languages converge but diverge even more since there's no financial need to learn other ones anymore. Language learning is hard and less people will likely engage in the activity if it only becomes a hobby. The most affected languages negatively will likely be the most learned ones at the moment.
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8465151/pricesgoodindex2.jpg){kind=link}
Music; Music Business and Industry; Music Education; Music Therapy; Conducting; Acting; Dance; Musical Theatre; Theatre Design and Technology; Wildlife and Fisheries Resources; Natural Resources Science; Genetics and Developmental Biology; Plant and Soil Sciences; Natural Resource Economics; Women’s and Gender Studies; Philosophy; Health Services and Outcomes Research; Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences; Epidemiology; Social and Behavioral Sciences
These degrees are remaining with reduced staff:
Mining Engineering; Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering; Civil Engineering; Computer Engineering; Computer Science; Electrical Engineering; Software Engineering; Elementary Education; Literacy Education; Music Composition; Music Performance; Law; Agriculture; Design Studies; Fashion Design and Merchandising; Interior Architecture; Human and Community Development; Environmental, Soil, and Water Sciences; Chemistry; Communication Studies; English; Secondary Education; Professional Writing and Editing; Mathematics; Management; Human Resource Management; Communication Sciences and Disorders; Exercise Physiology; Health Informatics / Information Management; Human Performance and Health; Athletic Training; Occupational Therapy; Speech Language Pathology; Audiology; Physical Therapy; Pharmacy; Health Administration; Biostatistics
These degrees are remaining with reduced staff and getting merged together:
Theatre with Puppetry; Costume Design with Lighting Design with Scenic Design with Technical Direction; Energy Land Management with Environmental and Energy Resource Management; Forest Resource Management with Wood Science and Technology; Horticulture with Sustainable Food and Farming; Agribusiness Management with Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; Public Health with Health Services Management and Leadership
These degrees are remaining with reduced staff but with some specializations eliminated:
Art and Design; Art Education; Art and Design; Environmental Microbiology
These degrees are being eliminated entirely:
Biometric Systems Engineering; Higher Education Administration; Multicategorical Special Education; Art History; Jazz Studies; Jazz Pedagogy; Composition; Collaborative Piano; Acting; Environmental and Community Planning; Landscape Architecture; Recreation, Parks, and Tourism; Energy Environments; Resource Management; Creative Writing; MS/PhD Mathematics; Legal Studies; Public Administration; Chinese; French; German; Russian; Spanish; Linguistics; TESOL; Occupational and Environmental Health Sciences
---
Also note that these are just recommendations not final decisions yet.